It is much better than the “Concise Chinese-English English-Chinese Dictionary” published jointly by the Commercial Press and the Oxford University Press even though it doesn’t include simplified characters, which the CCEECD does.

In the CCEECD, they don’t include most country names or most things related to countries. For example in the English-Chinese section they don’t include China or Chinese but do include English (the language). In the Chinese-English section they don’t include France, French, Italian, Italy, German, Germany, etc.

Unfortunately, the Far East dictionary doesn’t have 櫨橘 (Mand: lu2 ju2, Cant: lou4 gwat1) meaning “loquat”. I guess the word is only used in Cantonese dialects.

The Far East does include 金橘 (Mand: jin1 ju2, Cant: gam1 gwat1) the “kumquat” but they spell it "cumquat" while it doesn’t have 金桔 (Mand: jin1 ju2, gam1 gat1) which I think is also the “kumquat”.

> I actually found that in Meyer and Wempe's _The Student's Cantonese-> English Dictionary_, 3rd ed. (1947). I haven't seen it elsewhere so far.

Using the characters that you supplied I looked them up in a 1972 reprint of “A Chinese-English Dictionary” by Herbert A. Giles. The dictionary was originally published in 1892 and revised & enlarged in 1912.

> > I actually found that in Meyer and Wempe's _The Student's> Cantonese-> > English Dictionary_, 3rd ed. (1947). I haven't seen it> elsewhere so far.> > Using the characters that you supplied I looked them up in a> 1972 reprint of “A Chinese-English Dictionary” by Herbert A.> Giles. The dictionary was originally published in 1892 and> revised & enlarged in 1912.

I didn't know there was a recent reprint of Giles' dictionary. I've beenlooking for a copy of Giles', and the 2nd editions (1912) are ratherexpensive (haven't ever seen a 1st ed., not even in a library). Is it aTaiwanese reprint?

Giles' does have some Cantonese and Hakka characters in it, I recall,which would help explain why he'd have an actual "loquat" entry. Itspredecessor (as "the" Chinese-English dictionary) was Samuel Williams'from the 1870s, which also included dialects (actually, it was an expandedform of Williams' 1856 Cantonese dictionary), but Giles' successor, the1930s Mathews', is devoid of anything but Mandarin.

>I didn't know there was a recent reprint of Giles' dictionary. >I've been looking for a copy of Giles', and the 2nd editions (1912)>are rather expensive (haven't ever seen a 1st ed., not even in a>library). Is it a Taiwanese reprint?

Price: $125.00 Author: H. A. GilesUnit: Hdcr. (2 vol. in 1)Still considered to be the best dictionary of its kind, this revised edition presents over 10,900 Chinese characters with romanization in Mandarin, Japanese, Korean, and ten other dialects. Characters are arranged alphabetically in the Wade-Giles system, and a radical index arranged by stroke order is provided. A large number of binomes and phrases are presented and translated, and many useful tables are included. An indispensable tool for students of poetry and classical Chinese. Reprint of 2nd edition of 1912 original. CW.

>Giles' does have some Cantonese and Hakka characters in it, I recall,>which would help explain why he'd have an actual "loquat" entry.

I don’t know which characters are specifically Hakka but the book does include character readings in 10 Chinese dialects (Mandarin, Cantonese, Hakka, Foochow, Wenchow, Ningpo, Peking, Mid-China, Yangchow and Ssuch’uan) as well as in Korean, Japanese and Annamese (Vietnamese).

> >library). Is it a Taiwanese reprint?> > Yes, it is a Taiwanese reprint by the Ch’eng-wen Publishing

Thanks for the pointer. I had been wondering about the version thatCheng & Tsui was selling, since it bore a Taiwan ISBN (957-), signalingit was a reprint of some kind. $125 doesn't sound bad, when an originalruns at least $500 or so. What're the dimensions like? I have an originalof the 2nd edition of Eitel and Genahr's Cantonese dictionary, publishedalmost contemporaneously with Giles 2nd ed. (Genahr mentions that heknew of Giles' 2nd ed., but because of the timing wasn't able to consult it),and it's two huge volumes--maybe 3.5-4" thick combined (and the papersize is large, too).

> >Giles' does have some Cantonese and Hakka characters in it, I> recall,> >which would help explain why he'd have an actual "loquat"> entry.> > I don’t know which characters are specifically Hakka but the> book does include character readings in 10 Chinese dialects> (Mandarin, Cantonese, Hakka, Foochow, Wenchow, Ningpo, Peking,> Mid-China, Yangchow and Ssuch’uan) as well as in Korean,> Japanese and Annamese (Vietnamese).

I noticed it had tong1 'to butcher' in it, but with only Cantonese and Hakkareadings given; I figured that lack of readings in other dialects would be astrong clue that they were dialect characters (for dialect words).

>I noticed it had tong1 'to butcher' in it, but with only >Cantonese and Hakka readings given; I figured that lack>of readings in other dialects would be a strong clue that>they were dialect characters (for dialect words).

Oh. And those characters also have the word “vulgar” instead of characters under the heading “rhyme”.